Yes, the evidence was late, but the schedule itself was disputed. Also apple changed the patents it was asserting against samsung in it's preliminary injunction to give them even less time to prepare. Given the tremendous scope and depth of a dragnet required to invalidate patents, it doesn't surprise me that samsung didn't have enough time to submit evidence for discovery. Still, the law is the law I suppose.

You've gone from arguing that Samsung was perfectly within their right and that Koh was acting inappropriately to stating: "Still, the law is the law I suppose."

Which is it?

One thing that's still extremely troubling though is it was apple, and not samsung, who introduced F700 to the trial as evidence of samsung's infringement against apple. And yet somehow samsung were still not permitted to refute this with the fact that samsung was developing this very model even before the first iphone.

That's because the F700 was an utterly shit phone that completely failed on the market and didn't embody in any significant way the patents that Apple was asserting. However, once it was denied as evidence of prior art for Samsung, PJ FUDed it into being PROOF that Apple had somehow stolen a Samsung design. The same sort of assinine and unsupported "proof" she's been arguing Hogan's post-trial comments represented -- i.e., legally irrelevant and not proving anything whatsoever unless you already made up your mind based on her FUD.

The judge just kept on tossing apple favors like this, it wasn't really a fair trial.

Unlike Samsung, Apple submitted it properly and in a timely manner. You've again flip-flopped from "the law is the law, I suppose" to slandering the judge as providing favors to Apple.

"You've gone from arguing that Samsung was perfectly within their right and that Koh was acting inappropriately to stating: 'Still, the law is the law I suppose.'

Which is it?"

Nelson pointed out the fact that deadlines were missed by samsung, and I agreed with him.

"That's because the F700 was an utterly shit phone that completely failed on the market and didn't embody in any significant way the patents that Apple was asserting."

Reread my post and check your facts, *apple* submitted a picture of the F700 as evidence that samsung was changing it's own products to look more like the iphone. Samsung was prohibited from telling the jury that the F700 model was designed before the iphone. Koh deserves plenty of notoriety for that judgement.

"PJ FUDed it into being PROOF that Apple had somehow stolen a Samsung design"

Take it up with PJ. I'm not a sheep clinging to someone else's opinion as gospel. I can make up my own mind, thank you very much.

"Unlike Samsung, Apple submitted it properly and in a timely manner."

Once apple submited evidence, samsung should have been allowed to counter with their facts, otherwise why bother having a trial at all after discovery? The court's failure to allow jurors to hear the truth about samsung's design predating the iphone may very well have tainted the verdict.

Reread my post and check your facts, *apple* submitted a picture of the F700 as evidence that samsung was changing it's own products to look more like the iphone. Samsung was prohibited from telling the jury that the F700 model was designed before the iphone. Koh deserves plenty of notoriety for that judgement.

Yes, Apple submitted a document surveying the landscape of phones being pushed before/after the iPhone announcement which included a page that provided a screen size dimension comparison between the F700 and the iPhone. This evidence was presented to show a market shift, not to establish prior art.

Yes, Samsung attempted to make a new argument of prior art using new evidence a few weeks before trial using a new document as evidence, and they were barred from doing so.

No, there is absolutely no notoriety to this decision.

Look. Apple too wanted to file a few extra pages and exhibits (it did try quite often)... Apple had more patents that it wanted to sue for infringing (that it dropped to please the court and expedite proceedings), more witnesses it wanted to call, more evidence it would have liked to submitted, more arguments it would have liked to make, arguments it would have liked to change or bring up anew, etc, etc. It tried often, and Apple too was denied, sanctioned, scorned, mocked, chided, had its knuckles wrapped, had its minutes and pages counted, etc.

You don't see much lingering on Apple being denied any of these opportunities to improve their case. No moaning and gnashing that Apple was denied the opportunity to present what Apple thinks is its most effective and persuasive case. Both parties acted (rightfully) aggressively, and shop was kept very clean. The decisions for and against both parties are evident and show a fair proceeding. Apple tended to err on the grandiose which actually hindered their efficacy; Samsung presented more futile and redundant claims that wouldn't have been very effective even if they were permitted.

Once apple submited evidence, samsung should have been allowed to counter with their facts, otherwise why bother having a trial at all after discovery? The court's failure to allow jurors to hear the truth about samsung's design predating the iphone may very well have tainted the verdict.

Why? Why should Samsung be allowed to present new evidence along a new argument outside of the discovery schedule simply because Apple had appropriately entered evidence on a completely different argument and seemingly it inspired some inept lawyers to attempt to pull some last-minute lawyering? Do you have a legal basis for this? Or did you just want something to be good for Samsung?

The F700 as prior art is the second most pathetic argument, second only to the juror misconduct argument.* Claiming the F700 as the magic bullet that could-have, would-have, should-have gets tedious. These arguments are the last refuge of a loser.

* Wait. There's still the photoshopping/evidence tampering argument and a few more weak offerings I had put out of mind... I'll have to think about this...